Donate SIGN UP

Answers

41 to 60 of 119rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Avatar Image
Good God AH, did a large bill just land on your doorstep? You sure do seem very grumpy. Thanks for sharing Khando its very interesting, more people need to stand up to those that wish to cancel others. Eh AH?
11:29 Tue 13th Jul 2021
Thanks.
pixie374
What's the similarity?
_________________________

No question, just a statement.

So why does AH think that's fine for him but not Khandro?
I missed that, roy, sorry. Please tell me. I have noticed, naomi, for instance, or khandro, coming out with older "buzzwords" like "cancel culture".
But I'm just interested to see, if "freedom of speech " includes absolutely everything- or just things they personally agree with.
Freedom of speech means the right to say whatever you like. It requires the speaker to accept responsibility for any stated opinion or telling of events. The laws for slander and libel have been in place for centuries, but some would restrict our right to mock the pompous, expose the corrupt, or highlight the hypocrite if it suits their own secret agenda.
Ok, Togo. But purely out of interest- are there any limits on "free speech"? Such as my example earlier?
Are we going with- everyone can say whatever on earth they like, or is there anything "not acceptable". Is it subjective or objective?
It's about distinction between freedom of speech and hate speech.
// it requires the speaker to accept responsibility for any stated opinion//

Isn't that a bit unwise, to hold the words of one person, responsible for someone else's actions?
Thanks tiggs... so who decides what "hate speech" is? We have already seen this with transpeople... that telling the truth, such as deadnaming or biology, is "hate". But, is it?
I found this chap quite aggressive actually. And what's with the kkk reference? Didn't understand why he mentioned these vile subhumans.
Tiggs, I think the point is, you either agree with "free speech" or you don't. Most people have some limits.
Even now, I'm still not entirely sure, and nobody who has watched it is forthcoming... exactly what the school "cancelled". Which makes it very hard to k ow what to think.
I didn't understand most of it anyway, Pixie as he was shouting. I'm pretty certain I have ADHD....undiagnosed.
In the US, the First Amendment he's so busy pushing is specifically a protection against impingements of freedom of speech from Congress (and, by extension, anything else that represents the US Government or State Governments). And even in that case, it's not an absolute right, because, for example (see City of Chicago v. Alexander, 2014), "The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one's views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired."

It's also clear that just because you have a right to insult somebody, doesn't mean you have a duty to. Calling officials of a school "Benito Mussolini", and shouting at them, may or may not be a protected Amendment right, but it's basic decency to find a better way to put your point across.

Or, put another way, if the best you can say about your argument is that it isn't literally illegal, then you need a better argument.
Tiggs, we have both autism and adhd, in our family- and personally, I think a few are undiagnosed (including me). Separate issue really, but you can still find out, if it might help you.
Thanks Jim. Ignoring "decency" which is clearly hugely variable. What is actually illegal, please?
Does anyone actually know what the school "cancelled"?
It appears we only have one side of the story, Pixie, so who knows what was 'canceled'.
Exactly...
Mamya provided a link earlier, although the problem is that what seems to have been "cancelled" in this case are certain comments in long meetings from March and May, in videos that are at least an hour long.

As to the law: the School probably counts as a public service, so it has to be very careful about what, if anything, it censors. Still, I don't think it is unreasonable for a school to argue that if it offers people the chance to speak, then objects when they use it as an excuse to slander the officials, that the school might want to take that offer away (perhaps in favour of, for example, inviting a strongly-worded letter so that the person can still make their point without making a scene, ensuring that the person can still be heard, just not there and then).
Thanks... but that still sounds more like something they don't want to hear, than anything illegal?
// I have no idea where you find this stuff, and why you think anyone benefits from you sharing it with us.//

mr angry englishman !

the audience like it

41 to 60 of 119rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

An Englishman Speaks Up For Freedom Of Speech In America

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.